Civility Out?

[BillyJoe]

I think the problem is the definition of scepticism.



A practical definition of scepticism is:
Belief in those things for which there is evidence, with the strength of the belief being proportional to the strength of the evidence.
As a corrollary, a sceptic does not believe in those things for which there is no evidence, including those things for which it is impossible to obtain evidence (eg God).

By this definition, therefore, a sceptic IS an atheist.

Of course, that also depends on the definition of atheist.
If atheist is defined as someone who believes God does not exist, then no rational person is an atheist. To believe that God does not exist is to have evidence that He does not exist. And there is no such evidence.
If atheist is defined as someone who does not believe God exists (quite different from believes God does not exist), then sceptics are atheists because there is no proof that God exists.



However, others have a slightly different definition for scepticism.
For them, scepticism applies only to those things for which it is possible to obtain evidence (in which case, the above definition applies). For things for which it is impossible to obtain evidence, they feel they are free to choose to believe or disbelieve.
This, I believe ( ), is Hal's view.
In other words, Hal is a sceptic where evidence is possible but, where evidence for or against is not possible, he feels free to believe or disbelieve. He chooses to believe in God, acknowledging all along that there is no evidence for (but also not against) his belief.



Don't know if this helps anyone,

BillyJoe


edit: to underline the difference

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Civility Out?

...snip... That has nothing to do with his religious belief and everything to do with his aggressive, vicious anti-human words and deeds.

But those are (at least part) his religious beliefs, and if it his religion that (in his opinion) leads to those words and deeds then you would be challenging his religious beliefs and in his view I am sure he would consider you had attacked his religious views.

 

[crimresearch]

"By this definition, therefore, a sceptic IS an atheist."

Only if we include in the definition that a skeptic can never willingly suspend their disbelief.

Which would mean that no true skeptic could be a science fiction fan, or a romantic, or enjoy a movie, or roleplaying games, or anything else that depends upon the acceptance of something for which there is no proof.

 

[BillyJoe]

CS,

[BillyJoe:] "By this definition, therefore, a sceptic IS an atheist."

Only if we include in the definition that a skeptic can never willingly suspend their disbelief.

Which would mean that no true skeptic could be a science fiction fan, or a romantic, or enjoy a movie, or roleplaying games, or anything else that depends upon the acceptance of something for which there is no proof.

What exactly are you accepting as true without proof when you are a sci-fi fan, when you are romantic, when you enjoy a movie, or when you do a bit of role playing?

BJ

 

[T'ai Chi]

Appeal to authority?

you said

"I would suggest it to be illogical to believe in something without evidence, but your mileage may vary. "

So you must believe Martin Gardner illogical, going by your own statement.

Again, a simple Yes or No will suffice.

 

[SixSixSix]

Appeal to authority is a poor form of argument.

Anyway, I don't know Martin Gardner from a bar of soap, so how should I know whether or not he's illogical?

 

[viscousmemories]

A practical definition of scepticism is:
Belief in those things for which there is evidence, with the strength of the belief being proportional to the strength of the evidence.
As a corrollary, a sceptic does not believe in those things for which there is no evidence, including those things for which it is impossible to obtain evidence (eg God).

I think you are conflating evidence and proof. Someone's personal experience with Jesus is evidence to them, and so they cannot be said to believe without evidence. And taken like that, I've never met anyone who believes in God without evidence and I can't imagine a thing for which it would be impossible to obtain evidence. But I agree that it is impossible to prove, for example, a non-interventionist deity.

Similarly, I have a lot of evidence that my Mother loves me, but I cannot prove it. Nevertheless I still believe she does, and I say I'm still a skeptic.

 

[viscousmemories]

Re: Re: Re: Civility Out?

But those are (at least part) his religious beliefs, and if it his religion that (in his opinion) leads to those words and deeds then you would be challenging his religious beliefs and in his view I am sure he would consider you had attacked his religious views.

I imagine he probably would feel that way, but given the truth of the accusation hurting his feelings wouldn't really bother me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Appeal to authority is a poor form of argument.

Anyway, I don't know Martin Gardner from a bar of soap, so how should I know whether or not he's illogical?

Like nailing jelly to a wall..

 

[BillyJoe]

VM,

I think you are conflating evidence and proof.

I am using the word "evidence" in its scientific sense. Two essential features of scientific evidence are objectivity and reproducibility. Your first two examples (see below) are subjective experiences (call it evidence if you like), not objective and reproducible evidence.....

Someone's personal experience with Jesus is evidence to them, and so they cannot be said to believe without evidence.

And taken like that, I've never met anyone who believes in God without evidence and I can't imagine a thing for which it would be impossible to obtain evidence.

And your third example (see below) suggests that you require evidence of a thing to amount to proof of that thing (in the sense of 100% incontrovertible proof). So I wonder who is conflating the two? Scientific evidence rarely, if ever, provides proof (100% incontrovertible proof). If this was the case I could have dispensed with the word "believe" in my definition.

Similarly, I have a lot of evidence that my Mother loves me, but I cannot prove it. Nevertheless I still believe she does, and I say I'm still a skeptic.

There could be a lot of objective evidence that your mother loves you, and if there is sufficient evidence then you, and anyone else observing you and your mother, could believe that your mother loves you.

BJ

 

[dann]

So skeptics aren't allowed to make definitive statements? The problem with that is that it means everyone is a skeptic - no matter how woo-woo you are, there's always something you are skeptical about.

Is that a bad thing, SixSixSix? Do you want to monopolise the term? The discussion is in danger of deteriorating into the boring question: Who is entitled to call him-/herself a skeptic?
What is the problem if, say, an astrologer or a fancied psychic writes a brilliant article criticizing christianity? Or if a devout christian writes an essay repudiating dowsing?
I've seen examples of christians in my country writing excellent articles about faith healers, and I don't see the problem. I once reviewed a Danish collection of skeptical essays, some of them written by christians, some by atheists. Christianity was a problem in only one article claiming that Jesus was a skeptic. The other articles all pointed out that the beliefs held by the superstitious did not agree with reality, and not that they disagreed with christianity.
The point is the idea, the thought, the argument, the evidence and not the people espousing it. Hal Bidlack may have had a hard time coming to terms with the death of his wife. Emotional bonds don't simply stop existing because a loved one does, and sometimes people may seek consolation in religion for a while until they are able to accept as a fact something that is emotionally unbearable.

If it's inappropriate to claim that a believer in a god is not a skeptic, then it is presumably just as inappropriate to claim that a believer in alien abductions/flat Earth/bigfoot/crystal power/whatever is not a skeptic as well.

Well, as long as they are right in the middle of practising their religion - "relieving their spiritual nature", is how Marx referred to it, I think - they are not being skeptical. A few minutes later they may be - in particular when they are looking at the other guy's beliefs. That may not be very consistent, but at least they are not woowoos round the clock.

At this point we have effectively robbed the word skeptic of its meaning, have we not?

No, we haven't. Unless you want the concept to be almost racist, pertaining not to the thoughts people have, but instead to their inherent qualities as individuals unblemished by impure thoughts.

There's nothing evil or immoral about believing in a god. Lots of my friends claim such a belief. In my opinion, though, it is a clear example of abandoning skepticism. Your mileage may vary.

Religion is an example of abandoning skepticism! I totally agree, and religion should be criticized. Limiting skepticism to the miracles used by religions as 'proof' seems like treating smallpox with makeup. On the other hand, people make many kinds of mistakes, some of them very consistent and sometimes with dire consequences.
Personally I found Hal Bidlack's prancing around in a US airforce uniform at TAM2, urging people to applaud the soldiers stationed in Iraq, much more disconcerting than his objections to Penn's dislike of religion. The risk of having to experience that again would keep me away from TAM4.
Besides, he appears to be much more skeptical of his belief in a god than of his belief in the just cause of his employer.

There is really no point in arguing with people who say, I believe in this, not because it seems to be true for the following reasons, but because it makes me feel better!

 

[viscousmemories]

VM,

I am using the word "evidence" in its scientific sense. Two essential features of scientific evidence are objectivity and reproducibility. Your first two examples (see below) are subjective experiences (call it evidence if you like), not objective and reproducible evidence.....

Okay, so just to be clear I will amend your original statement to include that clarification:

A practical definition of scepticism is:

Belief in those things for which there is objective and reproducible evidence, with the strength of the belief being proportional to the strength of the evidence.

As a corrollary, a sceptic does not believe in those things for which there is no objective and reproducible evidence, including those things for which it is impossible to obtain objective and reproducible evidence (eg God).

Now with that modification, I really don't see how your definition of skepticism differs from naturalism. Would you agree?

And your third example (see below) suggests that you require evidence of a thing to amount to proof of that thing (in the sense of 100% incontrovertible proof). So I wonder who is conflating the two? Scientific evidence rarely, if ever, provides proof (100% incontrovertible proof). If this was the case I could have dispensed with the word "believe" in my definition.

That's pretty much what I meant. That we all believe things we can't 100% prove, and that skepticism only demands a doubtful and critical approach to evidence, not that we only believe things we can prove scientifically.

There could be a lot of objective evidence that your mother loves you, and if there is sufficient evidence then you, and anyone else observing you and your mother, could believe that your mother loves you.

I'm not sure what you mean by objective evidence in this case. What are some examples of objective evidence that my Mother loves me?

 

[BillyJoe]

VM,

....I really don't see how your definition of skepticism differs from naturalism. Would you agree?

What you are saying is that I am mixing philosophy in with the science in my definition of scepticism?
Perhpas you are right.

That's pretty much what I meant. That we all believe things we can't 100% prove, and that skepticism only demands a doubtful and critical approach to evidence, not that we only believe things we can prove scientifically.

Seems like we pretty much agree.
But what would you say is the purpose of having a "doubtful and critical approach to evidence". Isn't it to decide what you will believe about the world (with the proviso, of course, that you will revise your beliefs as new evidence comes to light)? Do you exclude "belief" from your definition of scepticism?

I'm not sure what you mean by objective evidence in this case. What are some examples of objective evidence that my Mother loves me?

I think, for example, that if your mother was observed to provide for you in every way she could, to look out for you, to help you out in times of need, to kiss you gently, to hug you warmly, to speak of you to others in a very positive light, then I would say that your mother objectively loves you with a probability of about 99.9% (she might turn out to be a robot - which, perhaps, might make the judgement call a little more difficult )

BJ

 

[crimresearch]

CS,

What exactly are you accepting as true without proof when you are a sci-fi fan, when you are romantic, when you enjoy a movie, or when you do a bit of role playing?

BJ

How many sci-fi or movie plots are there? Superpowers, sound in outer space, dinosaurs and people together, honest politicians...whatever.

Romance...that love is meant to be, instead of brain chemistry?

RPGs...
Well doesn't the name pretty much say it? You are assuming for the purposes of the game that you are a wizard, etc.

And in the case of religion, peolple can certainly find a denomination that allows them to accept that they are religious..which could range from sitting still for an hour, to singing a few songs, to eacting a crcker and some wine/

What makes the first groups worthy of retaining their skeptical credentials, when *they* suspend disbelief, but not the last?

Because being a Star Trek geek is 'cool' and religion isn't?

 

[rwguinn]

Back on topic...
I don't know the origin of it, but I read it in a RA Heinlein story:
Courtesy and manners are the lubricant that keeps civilization working smoothly.

we seem to have lost that, somehow. I certainly don't agree with everyone, but I can be courteous to them--until at some point, they lose the right to that courtesy. That point is entirely up to me and my opinion.

I have always treated respect like a bank account. Everyone is assumed to have a certain amount built up when I meet them. Some add to that. Many reduce the ballance to zero shortly after opening their mouths.

Demanding proof for every statement, both factual and opinion, is just being an (rule8). Not being able to tell the difference reduces the respect account.

 

[BillyJoe]

CS,

Because being a Star Trek geek is 'cool' and religion isn't?

You are not accepting sci-fi as true without proof, you are pretending that it is true.

BJ

 

[crimresearch]

CS,

You are not accepting sci-fi as true without proof, you are pretending that it is true.

BJ

A willing suspension of disbelief for some, an alter ego for others.

And is everyone in love just pretending? Or do they believe without proof?

In any case, how could we demonstrate that some people in religious settings are not doing the same things?

 

[Kopji]

Living with reason, compassion, responsibility, and using negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences is a better way than being obnoxious.

That said, the Christian Coalition is primarily a political organization. They make a poor example of 'mistreatment' of believers by skeptics.

Procrustes’ Bed (Greek Mythology)
Procrustes was a robber of Attica, who placed all who fell into his hands upon an iron bed. If they were longer than the bed, he cut off the redundant part; if shorter, he stretched them till they fitted it. Any attempt to reduce men to one standard, one way of thinking, or one way of acting, is called placing them on Procrustes’ bed, and the person who makes the attempt is called Procrustes.
http://www.bartleby.com/81/13673.html

 

[BillyJoe]

CS,

A willing suspension of disbelief for some, an alter ego for others.

You said....
"no true skeptic could be a science fiction fan"
Now, if you mean, by "alter ego", that those persons truly believe in the science fiction then they are not just science fiction fans. And, no, they are not being sceptical either.

And is everyone in love just pretending? Or do they believe without proof?

Well, certainly you can remain sceptical even in matters such as these. Is "love at first sight", for example, really love. Can you really love someone who you have only just met and about whom you know almost nothing. Over the long term, however, quite a large amount of evidence could accumulate (not that you think of it as evidence). On the other hand perhaps it was all just a thirst for sex and a willing and available body. It might take a considerable amount of time for you to realize this is the case especially if you thirst for love as well.

In any case, how could we demonstrate that some people in religious settings are not doing the same things?

In fact I do that from time to time if I am invited by friends to a wedding, baptism, or funeral. The thing is I know what I am doing and I am doing it out of respect for those who invited me. You don't have to be a rude or inconsiderate just because you a sceptic. And it doesn't make you any less of a sceptic either.

BJ

 

[crimresearch]

OK, but that is your approach to attending a service...

The blanket definition for all skeptics as never being religious presupposes that everyone who is religious believes without proof...

Or it assumes that skeptics never believe anything without proof.

And I doubt that either skeptics or the religious among us are all that monolithic in their views.
So I leave room for the possibility that someone can be skeptical in their science, their research, their work...and still allow themselves to be, in some manner, religious.

"Take away paradox from the thinker, and you have a professor"
Soren Kierkegaard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------